Rahul’s

a blue print o f success

POLITY HANDOUT — 04

DATED 25.06.2025

SESSIONS OF PARLIAMENT

Summoning of Parliament

As per constitutional provisions, the President of India is empowered to summon

each House of Parliament from time to time, determining the time and place of such
meetings at their discretion. However, there exists a mandatory requirement that the
interval between two parliamentary sessions must not exceed six months. This
effectively mandates that Parliament convene at least twice each calendar year.

In practice, the Indian Parliament typically holds three sessions annually:

Budget Session – conducted from February to May,

Monsoon Session – held between July and September, and

Winter Session – usually from November to December.

Under Article 85(1) of the Indian Constitution, the President is bound to ensure that
there is no gap of more than six months between the last sitting of one session and
the first sitting of the next. Thus, Parliament must meet at regular intervals, with no
more than a half-year gap between sessions. The President’s address is confined to
the first session of each year, and prorogation typically occurs only once annually.

To fully grasp this, it's important to distinguish prorogation and dissolution from
adjournment. A session spans the time between the initial sitting of Parliament and
its eventual prorogation or dissolution. The interim period between one session’s
prorogation and the commencement of the next is the inter-session period called the
Recess. Within a session, the daily parliamentary meetings are called sittings, which
are separated by adjournments—temporary breaks in proceedings ranging from
hours to days or even weeks.

Adjournment

Each parliamentary session comprises several sittings. A typical day’s proceedings

are divided into two sittings: a forenoon sitting from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and an
afternoon sitting from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. A sitting may be concluded by various
means—adjournment, adjournment sine die, prorogation, or dissolution (applicable
to the Lok Sabha only).

Adjournment refers to a temporary suspension of parliamentary business for a

defined period—this may be a matter of hours, days, or even weeks. This power
rests with the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (Rajya Sabha), who may
adjourn the House based on prevailing circumstances.

Dissolution and Prorogation

A sitting may also be ended by either dissolution or prorogation:

Dissolution applies solely to the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and can occur:

• Automatically, upon the completion of its five-year term (or any extension
thereof under a Proclamation of Emergency), or
• Prematurely, through a Presidential order under Article 85(2) of the
Constitution.

While dissolution and prorogation are formal powers exercised by the President
based on the Council of Ministers' advice, the authority to adjourn daily sittings lies
with the presiding officers of each House.

The effect of dissolution is to terminate the existence of the Lok Sabha itself,
necessitating fresh general elections. In contrast, prorogation only ends a session,
not the term of the House. Adjournment, on the other hand, merely pauses the
proceedings temporarily without affecting the session's continuity.

A dissolution results in the lapse of all matters pending before the Lok Sabha—
including notices, motions, petitions, resolutions, and even bills, whether initiated in
the Lok Sabha or transmitted from the Rajya Sabha. If these matters are to be
continued, they must be reintroduced in the newly formed Lok Sabha.

However, there are exceptions:

• Bills pending in the Rajya Sabha and not yet passed by the Lok Sabha do not
lapse.
• If the President has notified his intention to convene a joint sitting under Article
108(5) before the dissolution, such joint sittings may proceed despite the
dissolution.
 • The status of bills at the time of Lok Sabha’s dissolution is summarised as
follows:
- A bill pending in the Lok Sabha, whether it originated there or was
received from the Rajya Sabha, lapses.
- A bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha also
lapses.
- A bill under dispute between both Houses, where the President has
announced a joint sitting, does not lapse.
- A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha, which the Lok Sabha has not yet
passed, does not lapse.
- A bill passed by both Houses, awaiting Presidential assent, does not
lapse.
- A bill returned by the President for reconsideration under Article 111 also
does not lapse.

Further, while most business lapses upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha,
assurances under review by the Committee on Government Assurances and certain
pending bills in the Rajya Sabha remain unaffected.

Quorum

Quorum signifies the minimum number of members that must be present to legally
conduct business in either House. This is fixed at one-tenth of the total membership
of each House, inclusive of the presiding officer.

For the Lok Sabha, at least 55 members must be present. For the Rajya Sabha, the
requirement is 25 members. In the absence of quorum during a sitting, the presiding
officer is empowered to either adjourn the House or suspend the proceedings until
the required number of members is present.

Adjournment Sine Die

When a House is adjourned without specifying a date for its next sitting, it is referred
to as adjournment sine die. This authority also rests with the presiding officer.

Moreover, even after such an adjournment, the presiding officer retains the discretion
to reconvene the House earlier than the date originally scheduled, or even to call a
sitting after an adjournment sine die.
Prorogation of Parliament

Once the business of a session concludes, the Speaker or Chairman formally

declares the House adjourned sine die. Following this, the President issues a
notification officially proroguing the session.

However, the President is not restricted to waiting for adjournment sine die and may,
if deemed necessary, prorogue the House even while it is in session.
 MEMBERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT

(QUALIFICATIONS, DISQUALIFICATIONS, VACATING OF SEATS, AND

ALLOWANCES)

Qualifications for Membership

The Constitution of India under Article 84, prescribes specific criteria for an individual
to be eligible for election to either House of Parliament. These are as follows:

• The individual must be a citizen of India.

• He or she is required to make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation, in the
manner prescribed, before a person authorized for the purpose.
• The individual must be registered as an elector in any parliamentary
constituency, applicable for both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Earlier, a person contesting a Rajya Sabha seat from a particular state was required
to be an elector in that specific state. This requirement was abolished through an
amendment in 2003.

For reserved seats, the candidate must belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe in any state or union territory. Nevertheless, individuals from the reserved
communities are also permitted to contest from unreserved (general) seats.

It has also been held that the determination of a candidate’s age in election-related
disputes is not solely based on documents like the Electoral Roll or Voter ID card.
Instead, it must be assessed after considering all relevant evidence and
circumstances. This was affirmed in Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2004 SC).

Disqualifications from Membership

Under Article 102(1) of the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified from being
elected or continuing as a Member of Parliament under the following circumstances:

• If the person holds any office of profit under the Central or State Government,
other than a ministerial post or any position specifically exempted by
Parliament.
• If he or she is of unsound mind and declared so by a competent court of law.
• If the individual is an undischarged insolvent.
 • If the person is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired foreign
citizenship, or has shown allegiance to a foreign state. If the person stands
disqualified under any law made by Parliament, particularly the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualifications also arise in the
following situations:

• If the individual has been convicted of electoral offences or found guilty of

corrupt practices in elections.

• If the person has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two
years or more (except when detained under preventive detention laws).

• Failure to submit an account of election expenses within the prescribed time.

• If the person has a pecuniary interest in government contracts or services.

• If he or she holds the position of a managing agent, director, or officer of profit

in a corporation where the government owns at least 25% stake.

• If the person has been dismissed from government service due to corruption
or disloyalty to the State.

• If convicted for promoting communal enmity or for the offence of bribery.

• If found guilty of practising or propagating social evils such as untouchability,

dowry, or sati.

Whenever a question arises as to whether an individual is disqualified on any of the

aforementioned grounds, the President of India is the final authority under Article
103. However, the President is constitutionally obligated to act in accordance with
the opinion of the Election Commission.

Disqualification on Grounds of Defection (Tenth Schedule)

The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals with disqualification arising from
defection. As per Article 102(2), a Member of Parliament is disqualified if found guilty
of defection under the following conditions:

• If the member voluntarily gives up membership of the political party from

which they were elected.
 • If the member votes against or abstains from voting in the House, contrary to
the direction issued by their political party.

• If an independent member joins any political party after being elected.

• If a nominated member joins a political party after six months from the date of
their nomination.

The authority to decide questions of defection lies with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha
or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, depending on the House concerned. This
decision is not taken by the President.

In the landmark judgment of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court
ruled that the Speaker or Chairman's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to
judicial review.

Proceedings for disqualification on grounds of defection commence only when a

complaint is filed alleging that a Member has incurred such disqualification.

Penalty for Unlawful Sitting or Voting (Article 104)

Any individual who knowingly sits or votes in either House of Parliament while
disqualified or not qualified for membership may be subject to a penalty of ₹500 per
day for each day of such unlawful participation.

Vacation of Seats

A Member of Parliament may vacate his/her seat under the following circumstances:

1. Holding Double Membership

A person cannot simultaneously be a member of both Houses of Parliament. Under

the Representation of the People Act, 1951:

• If elected to both Houses, the individual must choose one House within 10
days. If no choice is made, the Rajya Sabha seat becomes vacant.
• If a sitting member of one House is elected to the other, the seat in the first
House is deemed vacant.
• If elected to two seats in the same House, the person must choose one;
otherwise, both seats become vacant.
 • Additionally, a person cannot be a member of both Parliament and a State
Legislature. If elected to both, they must resign from the State Legislature
within 14 days, failing which the Parliamentary seat becomes vacant.

2. Disqualification

If a member incurs any constitutional or statutory disqualification, including those

under the Tenth Schedule (defection), their seat becomes vacant automatically.

3. Resignation

A Member may resign by writing to the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya
Sabha). The seat becomes vacant only upon acceptance of the resignation.
However, the presiding officer may refuse to accept a resignation if it is not found to
be voluntary or genuine. This interpretation was upheld by the Supreme Court in
Shrimath Balasaheb Patil v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2019).

4. Absence Without Permission

If a Member is absent for 60 consecutive days without permission from all meetings
of the House, the House may declare the seat vacant. In this calculation, days when
the House is adjourned or prorogued for more than four days are not included.

5. Other Circumstances

A seat in Parliament may also become vacant in the following cases:

• When a Member’s election is declared void by a court.

• If the Member is expelled by the House through its internal procedures.

• On being elected as President or Vice-President of India.

• Upon appointment as a Governor of a state.

In case a disqualified individual is elected, the Constitution does not itself declare the
election void. However, this matter is dealt with under the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, which authorizes the High Court to set aside such elections. A
party aggrieved by the High Court’s decision may file an appeal before the Supreme
Court.
 Salaries, Allowances, and Pension of Members

The Salaries, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, as

amended by the Finance Act, 2018, governs the emoluments of Members. The
figures have been recently amended in 2025.

A Member is entitled to a monthly salary of ₹1,24,000 during their term in office.

In addition, Members receive a daily allowance of ₹2,500 for each day they are
present on duty at the venue where Parliament or any of its Committees meets, or
where any official business is transacted.

Members are also entitled to various travel and transit facilities, including railway and
steamer transport, as provided under the relevant rules.

Since the 1976 amendment, Members are entitled to a pension, calculated on a

graded scale based on the duration of their tenure in either House.

Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament

Concept and Scope

The term "parliamentary privileges" refers to the special legal rights, immunities, and
exemptions granted to both the Houses of Parliament, their members, and
committees. These privileges are essential to uphold the independence, authority,
and effective functioning of the legislature. In the absence of these protections,
Parliament would not be able to perform its constitutional duties effectively or protect
its dignity and autonomy.

The Constitution also extends these privileges to individuals who are entitled to
speak or participate in parliamentary proceedings, such as Union Ministers and the
Attorney General of India.

Categories of Parliamentary Privileges

Parliamentary privileges can broadly be classified into two groups:

Collective Privileges – enjoyed by each House as a whole.

Individual Privileges – applicable to members in their individual capacity.

Collective Privileges of Each House

The privileges exercised collectively by either House of Parliament include:

The right to publish or restrict the publication of its debates, proceedings, and
reports. The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) reinstated the freedom of the
press to publish accurate parliamentary proceedings without prior permission, except
in cases involving secret sittings.

The authority to exclude non-members (strangers) from House proceedings and to

conduct confidential sessions when sensitive matters are under consideration.

Each House is empowered to frame its own rules for conducting business and to
determine procedural matters internally.

The power to punish both members and non-members for breach of privilege or
contempt, through measures such as reprimand, admonition, suspension, expulsion,
or even imprisonment.

The right to obtain prompt information from concerned authorities regarding the
arrest, detention, conviction, or release of any of its members.

The authority to conduct inquiries, issue summons, and compel attendance of

witnesses, and require production of relevant documents.

Judicial authorities are barred from investigating parliamentary proceedings, thereby

upholding the principle of separation of powers.

No individual—whether a Member or not—can be arrested or served legal process

(civil or criminal) within the precincts of Parliament during a sitting, without the prior
consent of the Presiding Officer.

Individual Privileges of Members

Members of Parliament also enjoy several rights in their personal capacities, which
are as follows:

Protection from Arrest: Members are protected from arrest in civil cases during the
session of Parliament and for a period of 40 days before and after the session. This
immunity does not extend to criminal proceedings or cases under preventive
detention laws. This protection is codified under Section 135A of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908, as amended in 1976.
Freedom of Speech: Article 105(2) of the Constitution grants Members complete
immunity from judicial proceedings for anything said or any vote cast in Parliament or
its committees. However, this privilege is subject to constitutional provisions and the
rules of procedure established by each House. Members cannot misuse this
immunity to engage in conduct that undermines the decorum of the House.

Exemption from Jury Service and Summons: During a session, a Member is exempt
from being compelled to appear in court as a witness or serve on a jury, unless the
House grants specific permission.

Furthermore, Article 121 (and Article 211 for State Legislatures) restricts discussion
on the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts in Parliament, except
when such a discussion is part of a formal motion to request the judge's removal.

Breach of Privilege and Contempt of the House

A breach of privilege occurs when an individual or authority violates or obstructs the

rights and immunities enjoyed by the House or its members. Such conduct may
include obstructing legislative duties, defying orders, or disrespecting the authority of
Parliament. These breaches are considered punishable.

Closely related is the concept of "contempt of the House", which encompasses any
action or omission that undermines the integrity, authority, or dignity of Parliament or
its members. Though often used interchangeably with "breach of privilege," contempt
has a broader scope—certain actions may amount to contempt without necessarily
constituting a breach of any specific privilege. For instance, refusal to obey a
legitimate parliamentary order may be treated as contempt, even if it does not
breach a defined privilege.

Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Position

Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha (1959 SC)

In this foundational case, the Supreme Court held that if a conflict arises between
parliamentary privileges and the Fundamental Rights, the former will prevail, as
Articles 105(3) and 194(3) of the Constitution grant Parliament and State
Legislatures privileges equivalent to those of the British House of Commons.
Therefore, Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) cannot be invoked as a defence
against actions deemed contempt of the House.
P V Narsimha Rao v State (1998 SC)

However, the Court in subsequent rulings clarified that while Articles 105 and 194 are
not subject to Article 19(1)(a), they are not absolute and must be read alongside
Articles 20 to 22 and 32. The immunity under Article 105(2) applies only to what is
said or voted on in Parliament, and does not extend to conduct outside the House,
such as bribery or criminal conspiracy.

In cases involving acts not intrinsically related to parliamentary duties, such as

accepting bribes, members cannot claim protection under parliamentary privilege.
The protection under Article 105(2) is limited to official legislative actions, and
personal misconduct falls outside its scope. In this case, it was held that the alleged
bribe-takers were entitles to immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution since
the bribe was “in respect of” or having nexus with the vote against no-confidence
motion.

“In respect of” means relating to, concerning in connection with or having a nexus
with anything said or any vote given by an M P in Parliament.

Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024 SC)

In this landmark 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court revisited and overruled the
majority opinion in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case, which had controversially
interpreted parliamentary privileges to shield members from prosecution in bribery-
related matters.

The Court held that:

1. Bribery is not protected under parliamentary privileges.

2. The privilege under Article 105(2) must meet two tests:
• Functional necessity – the act must be essential to the discharge of legislative
duties.
• Intrinsic connection – the act must bear a direct link with the business or
proceedings of the House.

The words “in respect of” used in Article 105(2) and 194(2) are to be understood as
implying a clear and proximate connection with parliamentary functions. The Court
stressed that voting or speech in Parliament is protected, but bribery in relation to
voting or speech is not. It was held that “in respect of” means “arising out of” or
‘bearing a clear relation to’ and cannot be interpretated to mean anything which may
have even a remote connection with the speech or vote given.

Moreover, the Court clarified that parliamentary privilege is not the same as
legislative privilege. It covers not just the making of laws, but also extends to various
activities within the legislative process. However, such privileges cannot be extended
to shield corruption, which undermines constitutional morality and democratic values.

Conclusion

Parliamentary privileges serve a vital function in protecting the independence and

efficiency of the legislative process. However, these rights are not unbounded.
Judicial interpretations have gradually clarified the limits of such privileges,
particularly in relation to criminal misconduct, reinforcing the idea that constitutional
accountability cannot be compromised under the guise of legislative immunity.

Thus, while Articles 105 and 194 provide robust protections to legislators for official
acts, these do not create a safe haven for illegal activities carried out in personal
capacity. The Sita Soren judgment (2024) marks a pivotal step in reinforcing probity
in public life and ensuring that parliamentary privileges are not misused to undermine
the rule of law.
 PRESIDING OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT
Introduction
The Indian Parliament comprises two Houses—the Lok Sabha (House of the
People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). Each House has
designated Presiding Officers to conduct proceedings, ensure discipline, and uphold
the decorum and autonomy of the House. These officers are not mere facilitators;
they are custodians of parliamentary procedure, constitutional values, and legislative
privilege.
• Lok Sabha: Presided over by the Speaker, with assistance from the Deputy
Speaker.
• Rajya Sabha: Chaired by the Vice-President of India (ex-officio Chairman),
with assistance from the Deputy Chairman.
Each House also maintains a panel of presiding members who serve as
chairpersons or vice-chairpersons when the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, or Chairman
is unavailable.
Speaker Of The Lok Sabha
Constitutional and Legal Basis
• Article 93: Mandates that the House of the People shall, as soon as may be,
choose two members to be Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
• Article 94: Outlines the conditions under which the Speaker’s office becomes
vacant.
• Article 96: Governs procedure during the consideration of a resolution for
removal of the Speaker.
• Article 122: Bars judicial interference in matters of procedure and conduct
within Parliament.
• Articles 110 & 118: Assign key legislative powers (e.g., certification of Money
Bills and presiding over joint sittings).
Election and Term
• The Speaker is elected by the Lok Sabha from among its members as soon
as possible after the first sitting of a new Lok Sabha.
• The President of India fixes the date for this election.

• The Speaker continues to hold office during the life of the Lok Sabha, unless:
1. They cease to be a Member of Parliament;
 2. They resign in writing to the Deputy Speaker;
3. They are removed through an effective majority resolution passed in
the Lok Sabha.
A 14-day prior notice is mandatory before moving a resolution for removal.
During consideration of such a resolution, the Speaker cannot preside but
may participate in proceedings and vote, excluding the casting vote.
Even after the Lok Sabha is dissolved, the Speaker continues in office until a new
Speaker is elected by the newly formed House.
Sources of Authority

The powers and responsibilities of the Speaker derive from:

1. The Constitution of India,
2. Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha,
3. Parliamentary Conventions and Precedents (uncodified practices developed
over time).
Powers and Functions
The Speaker performs a wide array of duties that are procedural, administrative,
disciplinary, financial, and ceremonial:
1. Procedural Powers:
• Maintains order and decorum in the House.
• Decides admissibility of questions, motions, resolutions, and discussions.
• Determines quorum; adjourns or suspends sitting if quorum (1/10th of total
members) is not met.
• Interprets and applies:
o The Constitution,
o Rules of Procedure,
o Legislative conventions and precedents.
2. Voting Role:
• Does not vote in the first instance, to preserve impartiality.
• May exercise a casting vote in the event of a tie, ensuring the continuity of
decision-making.
3. Financial Powers:
 • Certifies Money Bills under Article 110(3).
• The Speaker’s decision is final and binding, with extremely limited scope for
judicial review (unless constitutionally arbitrary or ultra vires).
4. Role in Joint Sittings:
• Presides over joint sittings of Parliament convened under Article 108, in cases
of disagreement between both Houses over a Bill.
5. Committee-Related Powers:
• Appoints chairpersons and oversees functioning of all Lok Sabha
parliamentary committees.

• Ex-officio Chairperson of:

o Business Advisory Committee,
o Rules Committee,
o General Purposes Committee.
6. Role in Anti-Defection Matters:
• Decides on disqualification of members under the Tenth Schedule (anti-
defection law).
• In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), SC held that such decisions
are subject to judicial review to prevent abuse of discretion.
7. Miscellaneous:
• May permit secret sittings of the House under specific conditions.
• Ex-officio head of:
o The Indian Parliamentary Group,
o The Conference of Presiding Officers of India.
Independence and Neutrality
Several constitutional and procedural safeguards ensure the autonomy and
impartiality of the Speaker:
1. Removal only by effective majority, not by simple majority.
2. Remuneration and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of
India, immune from annual budgetary vote.
3. Conduct cannot be discussed in the House, except via a substantive motion.
4. Acts as a neutral authority; voting only occurs in tie-break situations.
 5. Holds high protocol rank, equal to the Chief Justice of India, and above
Cabinet Ministers (except PM/Deputy PM).
In contrast to the UK’s convention, where the Speaker resigns from party affiliation,
in India, the Speaker retains party membership, though expected to act impartially.
Deputy Speaker Of The Lok Sabha
Election and Tenure
• Elected by Lok Sabha after the Speaker’s election.
• Date fixed by the Speaker.

• Tenure extends through the life of the Lok Sabha unless:

1. Ceases to be an MP,
2. Resigns to the Speaker,
3. Removed via an effective majority resolution, with 14-day notice.
Role and Powers
• Presides in absence or vacancy of the Speaker’s office.
• Presides over joint sittings when Speaker is unavailable.
• Possesses same authority and powers as Speaker when presiding.
• Enjoys a unique privilege: automatically becomes chairperson of any
parliamentary committee he/she is appointed to.
• Like the Speaker, cannot vote in the first instance, but has casting vote.
Relationship with the Speaker
• Not subordinate to the Speaker; directly responsible to the House.
• When Speaker is present, functions as an ordinary MP, with full rights to
speak, debate, and vote.
Panel Of Chairpersons – Lok Sabha
Constitution and Function
• Constituted under Rules of Procedure by the Speaker.
• Maximum of ten members nominated.
• Can preside in the absence of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
• When presiding, enjoy full powers of the Speaker.
 • Does not act as Speaker if the Speaker’s office is vacant; in such cases,
a member is appointed by the President to temporarily discharge duties until a
new Speaker is elected.
Speaker Pro Tem
Purpose and Appointment
• Appointed under convention and constitutional practice.
• Since the outgoing Speaker vacates office immediately before the new Lok
Sabha's first meeting, a Speaker Pro Tem is appointed by the President,
usually the senior-most MP.

Duties
• Presides over the first session of the new Lok Sabha.
• Administers oath to newly elected members.
• Conducts the election of the new Speaker.
• Ceases to function once the Speaker is elected.
• This is a purely temporary post lasting only a few days.
Evolution of the Institution
• Prior to 1921, the Governor-General presided over the Central Legislative
Council.
• Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms):
o Created the office of President and Deputy President of the Central
Legislative Assembly.
o Frederick Whyte and Sachidanand Sinha were the first to occupy these
posts.
• 1925: Vithalbhai J. Patel became the first elected Indian President (Speaker)
of the Assembly.
• Government of India Act, 1935: Officially changed titles to Speaker and
Deputy Speaker, though implementation was delayed until 1947.
• Post-independence:
o G.V. Mavalankar became the first Speaker of the Constituent Assembly
(Legislative) and later of the provisional Parliament and Lok Sabha.
o Ananthasayanam Ayyangar became the first Deputy Speaker.
o Mavalankar served as Speaker from 1946 to 1956, a full decade.
 LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE IN PARLIAMENT

In the framework of the Indian parliamentary system, certain leadership roles exist
within both Houses of Parliament that are crucial for managing legislative
proceedings, maintaining party discipline, and ensuring effective representation of
the government as well as the opposition. Although not all of these roles are
expressly mentioned in the Constitution, they derive their authority
from statutory laws, rules of procedure, and parliamentary conventions. The
three key leadership roles are:

• Leader of the House

• Leader of the Opposition

• Whip

Leader Of The House

Definition and Appointment

According to the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the
House refers to the Prime Minister, if he or she is a member of the Lok Sabha. In
cases where the Prime Minister is a member of the Rajya Sabha, any minister who is
a Lok Sabha member may be nominated by the Prime Minister to function as
the Leader of the House in the Lok Sabha.

Similarly, in the Rajya Sabha, the Leader of the House is a minister who is a member
of the Rajya Sabha, nominated by the Prime Minister to discharge that function.

This position, though not constitutional, plays a key parliamentary role. The Leader
of the House exercises a direct influence on the scheduling and management of
legislative business and may also nominate a Deputy Leader of the House to assist
in these responsibilities.

In comparative perspective, the equivalent position in the United States Congress is

known as the Majority Leader.

Currently, the Leader of the House in Lok Sabha is Sh Narendra Damodardas Modi
in Lok Sabha and Sh Jagat Prakash Nadda in Rajya Sabha.
Leader Of The Opposition

Significance in Parliamentary Democracy

In a parliamentary form of government, the role of the Leader of the Opposition is

vital for ensuring democratic accountability. The person occupying this position is
responsible for:

• Providing constructive criticism of government policies,

• Offering alternative solutions or programs, and

• Functioning as a shadow head of an alternative government.

Statutory Recognition

The office of the Leader of the Opposition was first officially acknowledged in 1969.
However, it gained statutory recognition in 1977 through the enactment of the:

Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977

Under this law, the Leader of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament is entitled
to salary, allowances, and facilities equivalent to those provided to a Cabinet
Minister.

Definition under the 1977 Act

The law defines the Leader of the Opposition as the parliamentary leader of the
largest opposition party, which:

• Is not part of the government, and

• Has the largest numerical strength among opposition parties, and

• Is recognized as such by the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya

Sabha), as applicable.

Where two or more opposition parties have equal strength, the Presiding Officer (i.e.,
Speaker or Chairman) may, based on considerations like party status and
precedent, choose one leader to be recognized as the Leader of the Opposition. This
decision is final and binding.

According to directives issued by the Presiding Officers of both Houses, a party must
have at least 10% of the total strength of the House to qualify as a recognized
opposition party.
In the UK parliamentary system, this role is institutionalized further through the
creation of a Shadow Cabinet, where opposition members are assigned to monitor
and critique specific ministries. Each minister in the government has a
corresponding shadow minister. This system prepares the opposition for governance
if the ruling party loses office. Notably, Sir Ivor Jennings referred to the Leader of the
Opposition as the “alternative Prime Minister” due to the strategic significance of this
role.

Currently, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha is Sh. Rahul Gandhi and in Rajya
Sabha is Sh. Mallikarjun Kharge. During 2014-2024, this position was vacant in Lok
Sabha since the opposition party could not secure one-tenth seats in the House.

WHIPS

Origin and Status

The office of the whip is neither recognized in the Constitution of India nor formally
provided for in the Rules of Procedure of either House. Instead, it is a product
of parliamentary convention, inherited from the British system.

Functions and Responsibilities

Each political party, regardless of whether it is part of the ruling alliance or the
opposition, appoints a Chief Whip and other whips for both Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha.

The primary responsibilities of a whip include:

1. Ensuring the presence of party members during parliamentary sessions.

2. Directing members to vote in line with the party’s official position on issues.

3. Maintaining internal party discipline on the floor of the House.

4. Monitoring attendance and performance of party legislators.

A member disobeying a whip's directive may face disciplinary action,

including disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in certain cases.

In the Lok Sabha, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs generally functions as

the Chief Whip of the ruling party. In the Rajya Sabha, this role is usually performed
by the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs.
The Chief Whip maintains close coordination with ministers, advises the government
on legislative priorities, and ensures that ministers are present when legislation
concerning their departments is being discussed.

Conclusion

While the Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition, and the Whips are not
constitutional posts (except indirectly through parliamentary privilege and statutory
backing), they play a critical role in the smooth functioning of parliamentary
democracy.

These offices collectively ensure that:

• Government business is coordinated and properly managed;

• Opposition remains strong and structured, enabling democratic dialogue;

• Party discipline is maintained, allowing for efficiency and decorum in

legislative business.

Thus, these institutions uphold the spirit of parliamentary democracy, even though
they operate outside the strict constitutional framework.